Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp 1724–1735 | Cite as

Half-dose versus full-dose macrocyclic gadolinium at 3-T magnetic resonance imaging in paediatric bone and soft-tissue disease

  • Giovanna Stefania ColafatiEmail author
  • Enrica Rossi
  • Chiara Carducci
  • Simone Piga
  • Ioan Paul Voicu
  • Angela Mastronuzzi
  • Paolo Tomà
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Given the recent concerns about gadolinium-based contrast agent safety, dose reduction strategies are being investigated.

Objective

To compare half-dose and standard full-dose gadoterate meglumine at 3-tesla (T) MRI in paediatric bone and soft-tissue diseases.

Materials and methods

We prospectively enrolled 45 children (age range 2.7 months to 17.5 years, median age 8.7 years, 49 total anatomical segments) with bone and soft-tissue diseases (neoplastic, inflammatory/infectious, ischaemic and vascular) imaged at 3-T MRI. Two consecutive half-doses of gadoterate meglumine (0.05 mmol/kg body weight) were administered. Two sets of post-contrast T1-weighted images were obtained, one after the first half dose and the other after the second half dose. For qualitative analysis, three radiologists, masked to the gadolinium dose, compared the diagnostic quality of the images. For quantitative analysis, we compared signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio at half and full doses.

Results

Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio did not vary significantly between the two groups. Qualitative analysis yielded excellent image quality in both post-contrast image datasets (Cohen κ=0.8).

Conclusion

In paediatric bone and soft-tissue 3-T MRI, it is feasible to halve the standard dose of gadoterate meglumine without losing image quality.

Keywords

3-T Children Contrast agent Contrast-to-noise ratio Dose Gadolinium Gadoterate meglumine Magnetic resonance imaging Signal-to-noise ratio 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K et al (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2359–2362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nardone B, Saddleton E, Laumann AE et al (2014) Pediatric nephrogenic systemic fibrosis is rarely reported: a RADAR report. Pediatr Radiol 44:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American College of Radiology Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media (2017) ACR manual on contrast media version 10.3. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H et al (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bae S, Lee HJ, Han K et al (2017) Gadolinium deposition in the brain: association with various GBCAs using a generalized additive model. Eur Radiol 27:3353–3361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, Fowler KJ (2017) Gadolinium-based contrast agents: a comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al (2015) Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 275:772–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M et al (2015) Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 276:228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gale EM, Caravan P, Rao AG et al (2017) Gadolinium-based contrast agents in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 47:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scala M, Koob M, de Buttet S et al (2017) A pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety study of gadoterate meglumine in pediatric subjects aged younger than 2 years. Invest Radiol 53:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dehkharghani S, Qiu D, Albin LS, Saindane AM (2015) Dose reduction in contrast-enhanced cervical MR angiography: field strength dependency of vascular signal intensity, contrast administration, and arteriographic quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:W701–W706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crisi G, Filice S, Erb G, Bozzetti F (2016) Effectiveness of a high relaxivity contrast agent administered at half dose in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI of brain gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:500–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schueller-Weidekamm C, Lodemann KP, Grisar J et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of hand and finger joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: do we really need a full dose of gadobenate dimeglumine for assessing synovial enhancement at 3T? Radiology 268:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waugh SA, Ramkumar PG, Gandy SJ et al (2009) Optimization of the contrast dose and injection rates in whole-body MR angiography at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1059–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sherry AD, Caravan P, Lenkinski RE (2009) Primer on gadolinium chemistry. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1240–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al (2017) Gadolinium deposition in human brain tissues after contrast-enhanced MR imaging in adult patients without intracranial abnormalities. Radiology 27:161595Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robert P, Violas X, Grand S et al (2016) Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Invest Radiol 51:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roberts DR, Chatterjee AR, Yazdani M et al (2016) Pediatric patients demonstrate progressive T1-weighted hyperintensity in the dentate nucleus following multiple doses of gadolinium-based contrast agent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:2340–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flood TF, Stence NV, Maloney JA, Mirsky DM (2017) Pediatric brain: repeated exposure to linear gadolinium-based contrast material is associated with increased signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 282:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabruch A, Haase R, Kickingereder P (2017) Pediatric brain: no increased signal intensity in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after consecutive exposure to a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent. Radiology 283:828–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tibussek D, Rademacher C, Caspers J et al (2017) Gadolinium brain deposition after macrocyclic gadolinium administration: a pediatric case-control study. Radiology 21:161151Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rossi Espagnet MC, Bernardi B, Pasquini L et al (2017) Signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance in the globus pallidus and dentate nucleus after serial administrations of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent in children. Pediatr Radiol 47:1345–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maximova N, Gregori M, Zennaro F et al (2016) Hepatic gadolinium deposition and reversibility after contrast agent-enhanced MR imaging of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Radiology 281:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kanda T, Nakai Y, Hagiwara A et al (2017) Distribution and chemical forms of gadolinium in the brain: a review. Br J Radiol 27:20170115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frenzel T, Apte C, Jost G et al (2017) Quantification and assessment of the chemical form of residual gadolinium in the brain after repeated administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents: comparative study in rats. Invest Radiol 52:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Medicines Agency (2017) EMA’s final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans: recommendations conclude EMA’s scientific review of gadolinium deposition in brain and other tissues. Report EMA/457616/2017. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soyer P, Dohan A, Patkar D, Gottschalk A (2016) Observational study on the safety profile of gadoterate meglumine in 35,499 patients: the SECURE study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:988–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khan R (2016) MRI contrast agents: evolution of clinical practice and dose optimization. Top Magn Reson Imaging 25:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beiderwellen K, Kraff O, Laader A et al (2017) Contrast enhanced renal MR angiography at 7 tesla: how much gadolinium do we need? Eur J Radiol 86:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Song KD, Kim SH, Lee J et al (2015) Half-dose gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging in patients at risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Eur J Radiol 84:378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morelli JN, Gerdes CM, Zhang W et al (2013) Enhancement in a brain glioma model: a comparison of half-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus full-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine at 1.5 and 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:306–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nael K, Meshksar A, Ellingson B et al (2014) Combined low-dose contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion for acute ischemic stroke at 3T: a more efficient stroke protocol. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:1078–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sandhu GS, Rezaee RP, Jesberger J et al (2012) Time-resolved MR angiography of the legs at 3 T using a low dose of gadolinium: initial experience and contrast dynamics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:686–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuo R, Panchal M, Tanenbaum L, Crues JV III (2007) 3.0 tesla imaging of the musculoskeletal system. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 22:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meyer JS, Jaramillo D (2008) Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16:533–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vaneckova M, Herman M, Smith MP et al (2015) The benefits of high relaxivity for brain tumor imaging: results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadoterate meglumine (the BENEFIT study). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1589–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Runge VM (2017) Critical questions regarding gadolinium deposition in the brain and body after injections of the gadolinium-based contrast agents, safety, and clinical recommendations in consideration of the EMA's Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee recommendation for suspension of the marketing authorizations for 4 linear agents. Invest Radiol 52:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Costelloe MC, Murphy AW Jr, Haygood TM et al (2011) Comparison of half-dose and full-dose gadolinium MR contrast on the enhancement of bone and soft tissue tumors. Skeletal Radiol 40:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Imaging, Neuroradiology UnitBambino Gesù Children’s HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of ImagingBambino Gesù Children’s HospitalRomeItaly
  3. 3.Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyBambino Gesù Children’s HospitalRomeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell TransplantationBambino Gesù Children’s HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations